Misplaced Pages

*poke*

I am confused. --Cat out 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, aren't we all ;) --Duk 05:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Duk—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) --Zantastik talk 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Read your last message and I would tend to disagree.

I don't know the song but it appears the main part (better than half the song) appears in the article. I could citing one chorus but four choruses seem to be a bit much and a stretch of fair use. Ronbo76 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read fair use a number of times. . .

. . .even prior to your help. Usually when I ask for help, via helpme, I prefer a senior editor or admin type look at the page and edit appropriately. Since you said you can see both sides, maybe you could reestablish my helpme and ask for a second opinion on my talkpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC). And, I did read the talkpage. It seems the conversation seems to be dominated by the creator and one or two others. Ronbo76 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

No, the edit summary was not directed at you. I have absolutely no idea why you reverted the page and destroyed the content it included. I am not going to speculate on that and I'm certainly not going to try to find out whether you have any reason. If you write "because it wasn't sourced", I simply have nothing further to say about it. There are tons of articles that are not sourced and we accept that that is something that will eventually be put right. Because they are not controversial, and this article is not, it's not a pressing problem. In any case, this article is not being removed because of lack of sources. That is entirely spurious in this particular case.

As for WP:OWN, I explained on the talkpage that I was referring to the policy on banned users. One is directed not to reinstate their edits unless one is taking responsibility for them, so I stated that I was doing so. Because I would write "this is my edit" to make this clear, I wrote "this is my article" because the edit is a whole article. That is not exceptionable, Duk; I think you will see that when you think it through.

However, it seems clear to me that some of the editors involved -- I am not including you because as I say, I have no idea what motivated you and I'm not interested to find out -- are purely interested in conflict. In the case of Calton, I have a history and I daresay he intends to goad me by doing it. I am not interested though. I think it's a fairly good, interesting article, which no one involved would have any problem with at all were it written by a regular editor. But as so often in Misplaced Pages, that is not a consideration, and its being true cannot gain the day. All that will matter ultimately is that I am outnumbered. Sad but true. Grace Note 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Duk, if people fight to keep something out, eventually anyone who wants it in just gives up and the content is gone. Yes, I know it is technically not destroyed (the page is not deleted) but effectively it is gone. Thank you for finding sources. I genuinely believe it is an interesting article. If you wouldn't mind, and this article survives, could we reinstate the architecture one too, because I have inadvertently buried it and it should still be available, I think. I would do it myself but I'd rather stay away than be a focus of conflict for those who want it. Grace Note 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I was adding sources to the Coving article at exactly the same time as you when it came up with the 'edit conflict' screen asking me to edit again, which I did, though I forgot to include your reference or whatever you wrote. I'll try to find it and put it back in for you--Edchilvers 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Refs for coving

NYT . HGTV is particularly good not so good San Diego Times by one of Harrison's people but explains the development from "winding" and why you would try this approach gives some detail on its use a "coved" development testimony that this concept is in use from someone who seems to have strong credentials

As for the architecture thing, it's a commonly used term in architecture. Google "coving" and you'll find plenty that you could choose from. Grace Note 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Duk, thanks for stepping up to the plate and fixing the article. Good work. -Will Beback · † · 08:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pickles

I've never even heard of the nickname before you "lied" to me. - Patricknoddy 7:39am, January 13, 2007

Wow, happy new year to you too! OK, maybe you didn't make this edit 29 months ago :) --Duk 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article 'Hydraulic system'

Hello Duk. The text versus imgages can be a problem some times but now it looks better. However there is more to come later next week. Could you please check the english wording/spelling that I have contributed with. Most of the article however is written by someone else. Regards, USER: Lidingo Sweden.

Sure, I'll check it as best I can. --Duk 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Test data on NRLMSISE-00

when you go to ] just at the middle od the page it says:

You may also obtain direct MSIS model output (or test your codes) using the MSIS web interface found at NSSDC

so, it seems that they are using the NRLMSISE-00 model even it is identified as MSISE-90.

Anyhow, do you know how to access NRLMSISE-00 directly. Is there another page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

Thanks for some very good research and valuable comments and links. I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Duk 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk thank you

Thank you for helping me with the hydroelectricity question. Unlike the others, you actually provided links to support your answers, which is an excellent quality in a ref desk person. Wowz, thanks!--JDitto 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Duk 17:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Duk

Long time no talk, do you think I should go to the next step, meditation on this case: User:Travb/m.

The user went around a page protection intending to orphan the protected page. I have already been on WP:Third opinion and the editor condemned User:Mobile 01. Afterwards I found out that Bridgestone had been actively deleting material from the Firestone page (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone).

Any suggestions or comments?

(later) nevermind, the checkuser is conclusive. : )

Travb (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trav, I'm not sure about the best course to follow here, you know more about the dispute resolution process than I do. I saw some of you earlier postings at the admin noticeboards. As for suggestions: the overview part of User:Travb/m is good - update it with a few links (Mobile 01 admitted openly that this was his strategy, for example) and with the checkuser results. The best way to get people's attention is with a concise hook, just like the intro you've made. Longer and disordered presentations won't be read unless you get people's attention first. Looks like you found another very interesting case. Good luck!

Sorry I can't help much. Going on a wikibreak :) Regards - Duk 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your advice is always welcome and timely.

Heads up on this posting: User_talk:Cedars#I_hope_you_won.27t_leave. I was very careful in my wording about our relationship. If this statment is incorrect, or inflammatory in anyway, you can/I will change the statement, or you can/I will remove the statement. Always grateful and thankful.

I have watched your page, so please keep your comments here. Thanks. Travb (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC invitations

I saw your comments on the enormous thread about IRC invitations, and I was prompted to wonder whether you actually know what that means? It's IRC jargon for the method used to get into certain channels: if the channel is in "invite-only" mode, you have to invite yourself onto it. This is because in order to get access to the admins channel, you must identify yourself to the channel operators: you cannot get in "anonymously". There's quite an arcane process for going about this, which I won't bore you with. My point is that any admin can request admittance to the channel, and there would have to be a very good reason to refuse them: the "invitation-only" bit is a red herring. There are a few people who are not admins on this wiki, but as far as I recall they are the equivalent from elsewhere, such as commons (which is necessary for dealing with images sometimes) and meta; some are developers, in case urgent action at a lower level is required. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was prompted to wonder whether you actually know what that means? -- please don't be condescending.
• you have to invite yourself -- No, you have to be allowed admittance, please don't spin this thing.
• any admin can request admittance to the channel -- I'm an admin and don't want to be associated with the place; The channel owner failed to confirm when asked (but implied) that he is not accountable to the wikipedia community, hasn't edited significantly in months, and let the problem at hand fester for months - making it orders of magnitude worse.
• There are a few people who are not admins on -- you got that right, including a former disgraced arbitrator/admin with op rights (last I heard) who has no business being there, much less running the place.

Phil, thank you for the note, it was clearly offered with honorable intentions. --Duk 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. ref --Duk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks. Giano 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. --Duk 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Headlamp / Headlight

Hi, Duk. Thanks for your cleanup of the inappropriate move of Headlamp earlier today. I have gone through and reverted all the link changes he made to articles linking to Headlamp. I think the setup as it exists now is fine. Those looking for the caving variety of headlamp have their link right smack at the top of Headlamp; it seems to me a disambiguation page would be superfluous. If someone (such as PJBFlynn) feels strongly that there needs to be a disambiguation page, then certainly that would be a topic for discussion at talk:Headlamp, as it seems to me. --Scheinwerfermann 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. I think there could be some better disambiguation and naming of related articles. --Duk 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Woah Duk, that was you who nominated the article? I thought it was the other guy who was working on the article. Thanks man. There are two people in this world, people like myself, who talk about getting things done, and people like yourself, who go out and do it. Thanks a lot. Travb (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Comments to Mobile 01 I had warned her earlier about the image on her page. Travb (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy, looks like you need a break. --Duk 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pressured Tanks at Falcon 1

Ah, yeah, wow, that's what I call a talk page! Just want to say thanks for erasing my fault about the LOX tank (since it's not a pressured tank)! Good that there are some people out there that still have a bit more knowledge ;) ColdCase 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome ! --Duk 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood me...

...about the telescope thing. I don't have my copy of "Telescope optics" at hand and did not want to copy your proposed introduction without double-checking for accuracy (again, no distrust and no irony, it's just that I had long wanted to read it up myself). Your suggestion looks good to me and I would be pleased to read it in the article. Best wishes and happy editing, Kosebamse 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Hello. I noticed your comment on Gene Nygaard's talk page. Please disregard Gene's ludicrous accusations that me and user Darwinek work in some kind of a team. Me and Darwinek have common disagreements with Gene, that's all. And although I have Darwinek in good consideration, I acknowledge that some of his actions merited the arbcom remedies. Best regards, Húsönd 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Húsönd, my comment wasn't meant to be an endorsement of Gene's claim. I have no view on this claim one way or another - haven't looked into it and don't plan to.

There was another event I had in mind when writing that note; a while back Gene was give a block that I though was improper and I advocated for him. (it didn't have anything to do with you or Darwinek). I just wanted to point out to Gene that even though unjust blocks happen from time to time, things get taken care of in the long run. --Duk 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

] ] ]

Some old, same old. Take a look back into the past regarding Jeff's wikipedia behavior. It's remarkably similar.

And ]. Labeling someone a disruptive troll because they insist that articles be properly documented seems a bit of a violation of NPA. Color me shocked that this is happening.

Request Blocking of Troll Accounts

Duk,

Could you please block these accounts for 3 days each for trolling and harassment. Perhaps after they have been blocked once they will stay away from me next time. Thanks.

• User:Aim Here - SCOX Troll
• User:Jerryg - SCOX Troll
• User:64.139.4.129 - Vicious SCOX Troll. indef blocked troll account for Vigilant.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, doesn't blocking, especially IP blocking need to have documentation behind the block, assuming we're following the wikipedia rules?

Where does AGF, NPA and NLT come into this process for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Not for an indefintely blocked user like yourself. I believe they can block you on site. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the IP address talk page, you would see that the Vigilant account was indef blocked, but I was encouraged to create a new account if I wanted to continue editing. I decided not to. I am now editing. I am not banned, as you were. One account was indef blocked. If you believe I should be banned, you should have some pretty rock solid evidence of my continued and consistent violation of wikipedia rules. I'd love to hear what you have in mind Jeff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC).